AI Music Hits a New Chart Barrier as Major Labels Push for Human-Made Rules
The music industry is taking another step toward defining where AI-generated music fits in the modern chart system.
Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and a group of independent music companies have proposed new principles for determining when recordings created with generative AI should be eligible for official music charts. At the center of the proposal is a requirement that eligible recordings be "substantially human-made."
The proposal does not call for every recording that uses AI to be removed from the charts. Instead, it seeks to establish a distinction between music where AI is used as part of a human-led creative process and recordings where generative AI produces most or all of the creative material.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has backed the proposed principles, adding another layer to the music industry's growing effort to establish standards for AI-generated recordings.
What the Proposed Chart Rules Would Require
Under the proposed principles, recordings created with generative AI would need to meet several conditions before being considered for official charts.
The AI services used to create the recording would need to be properly authorized and lawful. The recording would also need to be substantially human-made, comply with applicable laws, including copyright and related rights, and avoid concerns surrounding stream or chart manipulation.
The proposal also addresses the terms of the AI services themselves. A recording could face eligibility issues if making it available violated the terms of the generative AI service used to create it.
Another proposed requirement is transparency. The use of generative AI would need to be appropriately disclosed to consumers through streaming platforms and other downstream services, in line with applicable laws and industry labeling standards.
The term "substantially human-made" is likely to be one of the most important parts of the discussion. The current proposal does not establish a single percentage or specific technical test for determining how much human involvement is enough.
AI-Assisted and AI-Generated Music
The proposed chart principles come shortly after several music industry organizations introduced a separate framework for identifying how generative AI is used in sound recordings.
In July, IFPI, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), The Recording Academy, SAG-AFTRA, A2IM, WIN, IMPALA and the Human Artistry Campaign announced a voluntary labeling approach that distinguishes between "AI-Generated" and "AI-Assisted" recordings.
Under that framework, an AI-Generated recording is one where generative AI creates the entirety or primary portion of the creative elements. Examples include an AI-generated lead vocal, a key instrumental performance generated by AI, or a recording created entirely through prompts.
AI-Assisted recordings are defined differently. They are substantially created by humans, while AI is used for certain expressive elements. Human performers would remain responsible for the lead vocals and primary instruments under the proposed definition.
The chart proposal takes that distinction into the area of music rankings. In practice, it would allow the industry to recognize recordings where AI is used as a creative tool while creating a higher barrier for recordings that are primarily generated by AI.
Why Music Charts Are Part of the Conversation
Music charts play a significant role in the recorded music business. Chart positions can influence how releases are marketed, how artists are presented to audiences and how commercial success is measured.
That makes the question of AI eligibility different from simply deciding whether AI-generated music can be released or streamed.
The proposed rules are specifically concerned with what qualifies for inclusion in official rankings. They also connect chart eligibility with concerns around artificial streaming and manipulation, an issue that has already become part of the wider conversation about how streaming services measure genuine listener activity.
The proposal comes as AI-generated music becomes increasingly visible across digital music platforms. IFPI reported in July that Deezer had found AI-generated recordings represented 44% of new music delivered to its platform, while Apple Music had reported that more than one-third of tracks uploaded to its service were 100% AI.
The Industry Is Also Looking at AI Transparency
Chart eligibility is only one part of the larger discussion.
Music organizations have also been working on ways to make AI use more visible to listeners. The labeling framework announced in July is designed to provide track-level information about whether a recording is AI-Generated or AI-Assisted.
The proposed labels are intended to work across digital music services, distributors, aggregators and other parts of the music supply chain. The system is currently voluntary and is expected to evolve as AI technology and regulatory requirements change.
For listeners, that could eventually mean clearer information about how a recording was created. For artists, labels and distributors, it creates another layer of metadata and disclosure to consider when releasing music.
Copyright and AI Training Remain Part of the Debate
The chart discussion is also connected to a larger dispute over how AI music systems are developed.
Major music companies have argued that copyrighted recordings should not be used to train generative AI systems without authorization. IFPI has said that responsible AI development can involve licensing agreements between rightsholders and AI companies, while continuing to oppose the unauthorized use of copyrighted music for training.
Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group are among the companies that have publicly reserved rights concerning the use of their copyrighted material by AI systems.
This makes authorization an important part of the proposed chart rules. The question is no longer only whether AI was involved in making a recording, but also whether the technology and underlying material used to create it were properly authorized.
What Happens Next for AI Music and the Charts?
The proposed principles are not currently a universal set of chart rules. They represent a request from major and independent music companies for chart organizations to adopt clearer eligibility standards for recordings created using generative AI.
The industry still has questions to resolve, particularly around how "substantially human-made" should be defined and how chart organizations would determine whether a recording meets that standard.
For now, the direction is becoming clearer. Music companies are working toward a system where AI can remain part of the creative process while chart eligibility is tied to human involvement, authorization, transparency and legitimate listener activity.
As generative AI continues to become part of music production and distribution, those definitions could play an increasingly important role in determining how AI-created recordings are released, labeled, measured and ultimately recognized within the music industry.
Let’s Collaborate!
Need help building the tone for your production? Hit us up – the Rareform Audio team would love to help you create the perfect soundtrack that speaks to your audience and enhances the power of your visual storytelling to new heights!
++
Rareform Highlights
++
Join our Spotify Playlist and vibe with us! Featuring an array of tunes our team has been listening to.
++
